Breaking the chains, winning the games, and saving Western Civilization.

Friday, August 15, 2014

How you know they're important

Both Roissy and I observed, years ago, that we would know Game and men's issues were entering the mainstream, not when the media began paying attention to the actual opinion leaders, but when they began appointing women as official spokeswomen for it. Apparently the same is true for the MRAs.

The Men's Rights Movement and the Women Who Love It. Who are these women men's rights activists? And why do they embrace a movement that some see as blatantly misogynistic? Below is a rundown of key players. A few of them, including Janet Bloomfield, who was the focus of a recent in Vice News article, have been in the spotlight recently. Others are virtually unknown to the mainstream, but within the movement they're seen as luminaries.Some of movement's fiercest activists aren't men.

Now, I very much encourage what these women are trying to do. It's not even remotely their fault that they find themselves being given a platform denied to the men they are trying to support. Dr. Helen, in particular, is always very good about rejecting the idea that she speaks for men or that she even can speak for men. She understands that we are perfectly capable of speaking for ourselves and points that out with regularity. But it is still a bit ironic, if entirely predictable (and it was, in fact, predicted), that the aspect deemed most newsworthy about the Mens' Rights movement is that there are women who support it. Real live women and everything!

It is great that Dr. Helen and other women are getting the word out there; exposing people to the ideas is far more important than establishing any cults of personality, and let's face it, some of our sites can be a bit much for the neophyte. But it is still amusing to see an article with pictures and glossy illustrations of Janey-come-latelies who have been addressing the subject since the early days of 2011.

If we were women, there would already be a Time Magazine cover with Roosh, Roissy, and me dressed in all black, arms folded, cast in dramatic lighting. Based on our respective numbers, I would estimate that a man's site requires about 20x more traffic to receive the same amount of media attention as a woman's. But it doesn't matter anyhow. Roosh is far too busy doing unspeakable things to the local women in Tanzania or wherever he is now and Roissy is even more reclusive than I am. We'd probably just send Rollo, Dalrock, and Yohami in our stead.

49 comments:

Can anyone explain or come up with some idea as to what is the root cause of men's obesession with placing women on a pedestal? Why are we so obsessed with garnering the approval of women?

Is it cultural? Is it a long term reproductive strategy (ie sneaky fucker or backstab your brother via white knighting)? Is it some weird incestuous Freudian mechanism? Simple cowardice and degeneracy as a result of our successes softening the men? Is it a death wish?

The Muslims don't seem to have this problem. Granted, they have similar problems in the opposite direction.

But yeah, there actually are some reasonable fair minded women, it seems. It's sad that gynocentrism has gone so far that men cannot advocate their own rights, but that's where we are. So, Im glad these women are here to help out. Some of them are hot too! :^)

@Some Dude: women are more biologically valuable than men. See the fundamental premise. That's why despite feminists' professed belief in equality, they still advocate for laws and social norms that privilege women.

The urge in both sexes to afford certain privileges and protections to women is normal, natural and won't go away; feminism merely seeks to remove the restrictions and responsibilities that traditionally went along with those privileges.

Both Roissy and I observed, years ago, that we would know Game and men's issues were entering the mainstream, not when the media began paying attention to the actual opinion leaders, but when they began appointing women as official spokeswomen for it.

It looks like you may be correct. But what are you basing that on? I don't think that, say, climate change or the new atheists (to pick two fairly unrelated currents in popular culture), needed spokeswomen before they entered the public consciousness. Does it only apply to gender issues?

A couple of notes. If I saw you and the rest on the cover of a magazine, I would wonder if you all had... succumbed to modernism, corporatism, populism, or otherwise sold out. I wouldn't see it on the mag, I would hear about it later. Few of those in your circle have much to do with places those would appear, and don't pay attention, even when shopping. Ignoring mags isn't so much a promise or a hope, as it is a simple reality.

Further, I don't care what the media presents, or how they present it. "News", as with magazines, movies, even the final stages of the queerification of comic books leaves the internet as pretty much my sole sources of information and entertainment. As above, a positive article in any of the lamestream products of misinformation would cause me to question you. And, I shouldn't need to remind, but bad press, if they spell the name right, is a milder form of good press just by being press.

Until there are media outlets that can be trusted, anything there would be seen as some sort of collusion, at first glance. But, hell, everyone has to make money. I would be looking to see if there is any quid pro quo at your site before dumping, or lowering your status.

The herd. Women are breaking away from the herd (How dare they!) and the redial feminists are incensed and other women are fascinated (many as if watching a train wreck).

It's not surprising that those pesky men are against feminists and feminism. The men are no longer necessary so why pay attention to them. But a woman? A woman who left the herd? She is a threat, especially when it is very obvious that she is taking women with her and new herds are being established.

You may not, but that's hardly the point. The point is that a huge majority does. If Vox, Roissy, Roosh or Rollo found themselves on the cover of time or any other rag, it's not about the news story, it's about perception. Power. This is what is going to sway the tide. The bonus being, that some will delve deeper and learn for themselves.

I think it's ironic - and hilarious. Long ago I noticed that the mainstream media seemed to be run by a growing number of stupid women - pumping out copy for other stupid women...and liberal faggots. These people didn't live on the same planet I did so I gave up on them and turned to about two dozen bloggers for my news and commentary. About a quarter of them are women and do not really concentrate on the gender wars...but are solidly on our side.

I am aware of Dr. Helen and she's okay. Judgybitch has an absolutely lethal sense of humour and wit. I got banned off the Return Of Queens for some comments I made about Israel. I am not upset about that - in their defence there is a maturity issue there and for the most part the girls keep it under control. They will grow up well.

When it comes to men's rights there are three contenders for top spot: Vox Day, Uncle Bob over at the treehouse, and Captain Capitalism. Vox and the Captain are very explicit in what they expect of women and how they want them to be. There is nothing unreasonable on their plate and women would have much more success with men if they listened to those two.Uncle Bob, on the other hand, understands EXACTLY what the modern woman IS. I got punched in the face by my loving wife once because I quoted him verbatim: "Most women are fascists and socialists by nature....". That is as far as I got when the lights went out! HAR HAR HAR! Uncle Bob and the truth are old friends and both are shameless mysoganists!

It's okay to put your women on pedestals boys - provided they love you and reciprocate.

Women speaking for men - just a bad idea. I understand that some would frame this as interpreting for the sisters [read media and culture], and as a gorilla marketing concept this has some validity if they are speaking *about* Men's Rights, not for.

That is why I don't have the same level of issue about WomenAgainstFeminism - let them speak up, leave for the new herd, and generally sow discord in the the grrl camp; that has no direct bearing on men.

Men need to speak for themselves, but guys are getting caught up in the whole *talking* drama, when that is chick crack.

The cathedral know at this point that they can't subjugate the androsphere by intimidation and media hit jobs. So the strategy seems to be insert the "friendly" women to slowly remake it into something more tame. Most important thing is to get those slaves to start manning up again, get behind those desks again, get into debt again. The system must be sustained. They'll try to do that with honey rather than force. But if the honey fails, don't count out the force.

The women are outed. They have a public face and name. The men like Vox, Roissy, Roosh or Rollo are anonymous. Vox is actually an alias, but does not post with his actual name. I'm not sure how we can complain when things are different because they are different.

The women are outed. They have a public face and name. The men like Vox, Roissy, Roosh or Rollo are anonymous. Vox is actually an alias, but does not post with his actual name. I'm not sure how we can complain when things are different because they are different.

Vox is not anonymous. One can easily find out who he is and what he does for a living. Good luck finding him in Italy though.

As for the others, do you not think that their careers would be on the line if they were outed? David Packman, who started Police Misconduct, outed himself and wound up without a job within a week. There are plenty of entrenched losers who would like nothing more than an ideological purge from their ranks. Recall also what happened to Vox and his SFWA membership.

I"m not completely resistant to the idea of using women as spokesmen for the men's rights movement [how I hate that term!]. It makes sense, because, as I suspect. it's just that so many of the MRAs, PUAs, and Game practitioners out there are probably not that charismatic or attractive in person and therefore would make poor opinion leaders. Rollo would be a good choice, Also: Christian McQueen, Victor Pride, Goldmund Unleashed?

About 17 years ago I got to witness a growing trend in homeschooling amongst my sphere of influence. The women involved started with focusing on their own children. Now they have full time jobs (and then some) based on and around homeschooling. - More, more, more, I need more! - Some immersed themselves with their husbands full support and consent, others - not so much and predictably so it has caused them to be unbalanced, stressed and spread too thin to be of any use in the most important areas of their lives.

The desire to be part of a herd is strong with women and from my observation, often times distracts them from their priorities and the balance of their cause vs. their family - their tribe.

Our culture needs its women to first and foremost be focused on their tribe. That starts with their father and then their husband. Women will get all off balance with their own children (dance moms, pageant moms, soccer moms etc.) because they have forgotten what is most important, the senior member of their tribe - their husband. Married women should not be consumed with any particular collective thought or herd movement unless she has an exceptional talent to balance it all. The most important word I've learned over the years when asked to help support this cause or that, volunteer for this most important thing or that, is "no" and I learned that after analyzing my failure in my capabilities to balance after having said "yes".

Who do these proxy representatives of the MRM confer and agree with before they make public statements on behalf of men's rights in all-female forums where men would simply be dismissed as misogynists?

It's an indictment of a feminine-primary social order that only females can come out against feminism and be taken seriously. People want to believe it's like having a lawyer represent you in a court of law, but an attorney's interests are only yours for as long as it's mutually beneficial.

It's more like having your mom go fight the schoolyard bully for you in front of your friends. You're still a pussy when the fight's over.

Right about what? I don't know why specifically most of the male manosphere bloggers remain anonymous, but I do know that not being anonymous usually has repercussions to your life. I was trying to highlight possible reasons why many remain anonymous.

Vox is easy to doxx if someone wanted, Roosh has been 'out' for well over 6 years now. The man formerly known as Roissy and his blog have been replaced by a consortium of writers. And Rollo, the guy who's blog links grace the side bar of the TRP Reddit forum? I'm not too difficult to approach either.

The fact is that in a feminine-centric social order only women are allowed to have any legitimacy when it comes to gender issues.

Who did the MSM approach immediately after PUAHater Eliot Rodger mentioned "Alpha Male" and in the next breath shot up Santa Barbara? Jessica Valenti, Manboob Futrelle and Arthur Chu, not red pill 'authorities' like the 3 R's, Vox, Dalrock or even Paul Elam.

And who was the first MRMer to throw the red pill manosphere under the bus in a YouTube video right after it? Karen Straughan.

It doesn't get much easier than going to Wikipedia. I find that most people prefer that route to simply following the Latin into Greek. As I like to point out from time to time, I have never been anonymous, you're just undereducated.

Has there ever been a male president of NOW? Male spokesmen for feminism that are given more prominence than Gloria Steinem?If they want to help, great. Pack lunches, organize schedules, coordinate plans. But don't lead.

And unless that chick from the vice documentary just got off chemo, I don't trust her at all. I've never met a short haired girl that wasn't a feminazi I'm the truest sense of the word.

Joseph Gordon-Levitt's parents taught him about the history of feminism at a young age.

Now 33, the actor was shocked to learn that there are people who proudly declare themselves anti-feminist.

"What [feminism] means to me is that you don’t let your gender define who you are -- you can be who you want to be, whether you’re a man, a woman, a boy, a girl, whatever. However you want to define yourself, you can do that and should be able to do that, and no category ever really describes a person because every person is unique," the "Sin City: A Dam to Kill For" actor told the Daily Beast. "So yes, I’d absolutely call myself a feminist."

Gordon-Levitt added that to him, the idea of equality for women is especially important given the history of "women suffering abuse, injustice and not having the same opportunities as men."

"I think that’s been very detrimental to the human race as a whole," he said. "I’m a believer that if everyone has a fair chance to be what they want to be and do what they want to do, it’s better for everyone. It benefits society as a whole."

In the mainstream, men are only allowed to have whatever opinions that Team Woman allows them to have. So all you see is the female point of view presented by women, and the female point of view presented by feminized men. A man who steps out of line will have his ass handed to him (metaphorically speaking) in short order, and will be compelled to repent in sackcloth and ashes, begging for forgiveness from Team Woman. Hell, even the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES has to apologize for calling a female attorney general attractive, for God's sakes.

The raw, unfiltered male point of view has no home in the mainstream, which is why the manosphere exists.

This is related to something that has been driving me nuts lately while listening to the radio while commuting.

Public transit, company spokespersons, police departments, government offices, special interest groups, fundraisers, and so forth, seem to have female spokespersons for all media interactions? and every sentence is ending in a question mark? and it gets really annoying after awhile that no one seems to have a grasp of facts? You know, like when taking a position on a union dispute? Or even giving a response on a police investigation?

I'm even starting to almost appreciate when even a liberal cause spouting a bunch of emo nonsense gets on for a public announcement but at least has a frickin' MAN give the piece with some declaration sentences.

Just want to reach through the radio and smack the women who can't seem to take a stand on anything.

"Just want to reach through the radio and smack the women who can't seem to take a stand on anything."

They have to protect themselves and their so-called positions or stances on anything so that there is always an escape route when their position turns out to be untenable, embarrassing, or incriminating. The question mark protects everything they say and allows them to wisely posture and then go which ever way makes them appear in the best light. They do not take a stand on anything because of their deathly fear of falling and looking stupid in the process. Appearances and image are sacrosanct.

I don't consider these women to be "speaking for us" in the first place. They're people who have an opinion about topics dear to the manosphere, so they've written books or started blogs to share their opinions. If the media beats a path to their door because they happen to be women and the seeming contradiction intrigues them, that's stupid; but it's the media's fault, not ours. It's not like, if Time Magazine calls Vox or Rollo asking to do a piece on hypergamy, they're going to redirect the request to Dr. Helen.

So the suggestion that we're wimps because we "let" women speak for us is just the usual shaming nonsense. There are many men, both pseudonymous and otherwise, who would be happy to tell the MSM what we're about, if they had the slightest interest in asking for any purpose other than the occasional hit piece.

Of course, if Vox did such an interview, I wouldn't consider him to be "speaking for us" either; he'd be speaking for himself, just as Dr. Helen and these other women are.

The Men's Rights Movement and the Women Who Love It. Who are these women men's rights activists? And why do they embrace a movement that some see as blatantly misogynistic? Below is a rundown of key players. A few of them, including Janet Bloomfield, who was the focus of a recent in Vice News article, have been in the spotlight recently. Others are virtually unknown to the mainstream, but within the movement they're seen as luminaries.Some of movement's fiercest activists aren't men.

This is actually insulting to men everywhere. No recognition except for any females involved. Why do we put up with this?

But it is still a bit ironic, if entirely predictable (and it was, in fact, predicted), that the aspect deemed most newsworthy about the Mens' Rights movement is that there are women who support it. Real live women and everything!

Both Roissy and I observed, years ago, that we would know Game and men's issues were entering the mainstream, not when the media began paying attention to the actual opinion leaders, but when they began appointing women as official spokeswomen for it.

It looks like you may be correct. But what are you basing that on? I don't think that, say, climate change or the new atheists (to pick two fairly unrelated currents in popular culture), needed spokeswomen before they entered the public consciousness. Does it only apply to gender issues?

It has less to do with being a "gender" issue, and more to do with the MRM being opposed to one of the Marxist media's favorite pets, the feminists (feminism is fundamentally at odds with stable families, and Marxists abhor the family). Since the MRM is an "enemy" movement, the Marxist media are trying to designate "the leaders". Women are the safest bet, as there is a higher chance that one of them will renounce her position, and go feminist -- if this happens, it can be used to put a torpedo (or a half dozen) into the MRM's ship.

Watch for the Marxist media to replace their current designates with other women who are less and less committed to men's rights. Curent fully-committed women will be replaced with "equality feminists" like Cathy Young (frequent contributor to Reason magazine since the 1990's) and Christina Hoff Sommers (who didn't give a shit about men until she had a son...once he started going to elementary school, she was inspired to write "The War on Boys"... but she still considers herself to be a feminist)... finally, they will be stripped of their propped up positions (care of the Marxist Media), and they, too will be given the heave-ho in favor of a selection from the usual suspects among the female supremecist feminists, who will take turns pretending to "speak for men."

Why do we not see something like this in the Glowbull Worming movement? It's simple: the Marxist Media doesn't consider them to be The Enemy (TM), silly.

I dunno if she was throwing PUAs under the bus. Just said that MRAs and PUAs are different things. She mentioned feminists' inconsistency where they think PUAs, anti-PUAs and MRAs are all the same. I don't think MRAs should attempt to disassociate themselves from redpillers in order to look better, but I dunno if this was happening here. I hope nobody does that though. If they do, they won't make feminists like them, and look like a traitorous coward as well.